There is a movement out there calling on pastors to endorse candidates for political office from the pulpit. I sympathize with the aims of this group. They are trying to make a statement to the government and to the IRS that the pulpit should remain free from government intrusion. The IRS, after getting spanked a few times recently for politically-motivated actions against conservatives, is refusing to take the bait. They have not stepped up enforcement against any of those pastors who have made this act of protest.
It makes no difference to me. I have never endorsed a candidate for public office from the pulpit and do not intend to do so in the future. It is not the threat of government penalty that motivates me. Honestly, how slow would things have to be in the USA for the government to care about what happens in small to medium sized church in Sioux City, IA? I’m guessing they’ve got bigger fish to fry. Megachurch pastors like Bart Barber and Alan Cross may have something to worry about, but not me and my church.
But I’m still not planning to endorse a candidate. There are two primary reasons for that.
1) I’ve been too often disappointed by candidates for office. I remember hearing the personal testimony of a candidate for office and thinking, “Wow, this guy is amazing.” I voted for him. Suffice it to say that I was not as impressed with his performance in office as I was in his candidacy for that office. How many times have “family values” candidates (successful or not) been caught living private lives that didn’t match their public stands – engaging in affairs, hiring prostitutes, misappropriating money, or simply engaging in stupidity.
I’ve been more tempted toward negative endorsements – haven’t done it, but I’ve been tempted. There are certain candidates whose views on issues related to life (abortion, etc) and morality place them outside the boundaries of Christian support, in my opinion. But a negative endorsement of one candidate is essentially an endorsement of another. With every fiber of my being, I wanted President Obama to be defeated for a second term. But to give him a negative endorsement (disdorsement?) would have been to endorse Mitt Romney, something I would never do behind the pulpit of my church. I (held my nose and) voted Romney, and I think he’d have done a better job than Mr. Obama, but that is not something I’m going to say in the pulpit.
2) I am in the pulpit to endorse one office holder – the King of kings and Lord of lords. Jesus died and rose again that he might be Lord of all (Romans 14:9). It is the pastor’s duty to endorse Christ (the one who will never disappoint!) and to make his name known. I will preach the gospel. I will speak to moral issues.
But I just don’t see how endorsing a candidate for office is part of my job as a pastor. I am a loyal, patriotic American – a yankee-doodle dandy. But when I stand in the pulpit, I’m an ambassador of Christ’s kingdom.
Part of me would enjoy tweaking the IRS and joining this movement. And, I have strong political opinions that I will exercise tomorrow. But when I stand in the pulpit, I need to remember where my most important citizenship is.
I regularly endorse the Yankees, of course, but NOT a political candidate.
It’s worse. “you cannot serve both God and Yankees…”
If the voting population isn’t concerned enough to find out about candidates from the myriad of sources available, they certainly shouldn’t depend on one man’s opinion, anyhoo, even if he is a preacher.
Incidentally I’m not saying my premise is wrong, either, but…..
Well said Pastor.
Dave,
The President announced today that he will not seek a third term. This news should make you very happy.
I will not endorse candidates from behind the pulpit either. God and politics doesn’t mix. If someone to say Republicans love God or Democrats love the devil, is just a plain lie. There are studies that indicate Democrats are more intelligent than Republicans, but I don’t go around telling anyone about those studies. I would appreciate if you kept this to yourself.
Great post, Dave.
Should be, For someone to say
The fact that Obama can’t seek a third term is good news for America.
Double Yep and Triple Yep with a Hot-Diggidy-Dog thrown in for good measure!!
“There are studies that indicate Democrats are more intelligent than Republicans.”
Well, Jess, you may be right, because the Scripture does declare in Luke 16:8 the following:
” . . . for the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light.”
Maybe Democrats are wiser in this generation than Republicans. I never thought much about until now, Jess. Thank you for the wisdom from your “wiser” mind. It adds greatly to my “light.”
cb
Do I see a tongue in cheek somewhere 🙂
“Tongue in cheek” is often good medicine for “foot in mouth.”
cb
good one 🙂
cb scott,
I’m glad I could help.
Also, because I’m not running for office.
🙂
I have “encouraged” the voting for the right candidate many times from a multitude of venues. I will continue to do so.
During the first race for the presidency of the current POTUS, I wrote a post stating and publicly stated that he would do more harm to the USA than Osama bin Laden. Needless to say, I was scorched by a multitude of Christian brothers and sisters who had high hopes and the best of intentions, numerous infidels, heretics, and a great host of Wild Geese, flakes, and nuts on another brother’s blog.
However and sadly, the last six miserable years of poor leadership in the federal government have proven me right. I stand by what I stated then. I will also continue to encourage people to vote for the best candidate. . . which is, in most cases, very easy to determine.
I have mixed feeling on this, thus I can understand the argument favoring endorsement. However, I have never done that and do to foresee that I will change my practice. As I understand it, it is illegal to do so. If I am correct in that understanding, simply because the IRS looks the other way does not make it OK to do so. As Christian pastors we should set the example in abiding by the law. We are not at liberty to pick and choose which laws we will obey and which we will not. Endorsing a candidate from the pulpit is at least the “appearance of evil” which we are told in the Word to avoid.
I was told at my ordination 50 years ago to “preach the Word”. I soon discovered why. When I preach the inspired, infallible, inerrant, Word I stand on solid ground. When I preach my opinions…….well, you get the idea.
Perhaps we should take a lesson from Billy Graham who changed his long standing policy and endorsed Nixon, which he later publicly regretted.
It’s not a crime to do it, DL – but it’s a violation of an IRS rule. One can’t go to jail for endorsing a candidate but his church can possibly run afoul of IRS regs if he does so in certain circumstances and the IRS wans to follow a strict interpretation of the rule and enforce it. That has never happened though. Some legal scholars think that if the IRS were to actually do that it’d be struck down by courts – but who knows!?
I think Miller (see what I did there, 🙂 ) has outlined better reasons to not do it.
In other words, it’s not illegal – but it us against the rules.
I don’t mean to parse words to indicate that it’s ok to do it. I agree we should obey the rules or work to change them. If we break them – we better be willing to suffer the consequences.
Dave,
I think your second point hits the nail on the head as to why endorsing a political candidate should never be the primary purpose of any Christian sermon. A huge AMEN from this corner of Mississippi!
I do think, though, that there are times when it is appropriate, and even necessary for a pastor to speak biblically and theologically about relevant social and political issues facing the flock. For example, in the election between Romney and Obama, I believe it would have been wise for every pastor to consider doing a message on Romans 13 to give his people a solid foundation. I personally feel that many Christians went overboard about the fact that Romney was a Mormon and a simple message from Romans 13 would have put a lot of that to rest. I know this to be true because at first I had reservations and doubts about voting for a Mormon until reading some thoughts from older and wiser pastors – after thinking through what Scripture actually said it was a no-brainer for me to support the Mormon over the abortionist.
One suggestion for churches I’d like to throw out is what we did in my last church. Each Sunday we would read a passage of Scripture as a congregation – typically this would be a Psalm or something from the OT. But what we also started doing was having a brief explanation of the passage after the reading. This provided an excellent way to speak to current events without doing it during the sermon. For instance, at the beginning of the school year we would read something related to childrearing or the family, and then we would pray for teachers, parents, etc. Thus, we were able to remind ourselves of biblical principles when election time rolled around without spending the whole sermon on a political topic.
I’d be curious what others did in that season and other similar situations. Are there other texts you’ve found particularly helpful in dealing with political issues? How did you integrate them into your church’s teaching?
I always heard when you mix politics and religion you get politics. Attributed to will Rogers, but a quick Internet search couldn’t confirm that.
I try to speak about politics without being political, if that makes sense. But I have not and will not endorse candidates from the pulpit. But I do understand why people see fit to.
Luke
It makes perfect sense. One can speak to political issues and not do politics. Many of the issues today have ethical overtones and must be spoken too….abortion etc.
Dave, I see your point and think point 1 especially gives us a note of caution.
I don’t see the connection in point 2. It seems like over spiritualizing to say you are not endorsing a candidate but you are “endorsing” Jesus Christ.
I think that could easily be seen as a cop out, though I don’t suspect you mean it that way. Jesus is not running for office. In fact, He strictly commands us not to seek to make Him a political figure. So, I think your analogy breaks down a bit at that point. I don’t think it is an apple to apple comparison.
Secondarily, I think that some kind of specific instruction should be given to the congregation–perhaps your idea of a negative endorsement is a good way to go. After all, there is no issue that impacts morality in our nation more than politics.
I do believe one can fulfill this responsibility by preaching on morality, but I think we owe it to our fellow believers to add a prophetic voice to the political process.
I respect your position and I agree with a great deal of it. I just think we need a prophetic (pulpit) voice in the political arena. Having said that, I think it goes to far to do it merely to challenge the IRS.
Thanks for the post to generate a good discussion of an important issue.
“After all, there is no issue that impacts morality in our nation more than politics.”
Can’t let this one go unchallenged, Jack.
I can think of several issues that impact US morality more than politics. All of which should be preached from pulpits… And practiced outside of them.
Never have and never will. Moral issues are always on the table, but not endorsing any candidate. Plus, serving in a predominantly black neighborhood, I have found politics to be a huge stumbling block to the gospel.
My pulpit is reserved for the Lord Jesus Christ and the Word of God. I will not campaign for a man from it.
In other venues, I will gladly tell someone what I think, and who I will vote for.
David
You and me both, David.
John
volfan
add my name to that list
David, I take a bit of a different approach. My pulpit is reserved for Jesus Christ and I believe He is as much Lord over politics as He is Lord over praise styles.
So, we have the same view of our pulpits but with very different practices.
More than a few of the Lord’s sermons, and the sermons of prophets, directly addressed the political leaders of their day.
I don’t think you meant it this way but your post could sound very pompously pious and demeaning of a different approach.
I really do not understand the “fencing in” of the Christian message when it comes to politics. Certainly, such a view is not mandated in Scripture, but the weight of the evidence of the prophets suggests otherwise.
Again, I am not suggesting you mean to be pious and demeaning. I’ve just heard the same thing from preachers who were in fact demeaning.
I appreciate you have come to your perspective after much thought and reflection.
As preachers of the word, we are commanded to expose the unfruitful works of darkness, and not be involved in them.
The current President has been at war with the family in his views from many different angles, of which do carry weight from his position of power. When he expressed in the context of homosexual marriage, “[Michelle and I] we are both practicing Christians and obviously this position may be considered to put us at odds with the views of others. But, you know, when we think about our faith, the thing at root that we think about is, not only Christ sacrificing himself on our behalf, but it’s also the Golden Rule, you know, treat others the way you would want to be treated.
“And I think that’s what we try to impart to our kids and that’s what motivates me as president and I figure the most consistent I can be in being true to those precepts, the better I’ll be as a dad and a husband and, hopefully, the better I’ll be as president,”
It is important for those in our churches and community for Pastors to speak clearly about the truth. When the current President equates homosexuality with Christ’s sacrifice on the cross…. you better believe I am going to expose that gross misrepresentation of our Lord and Savior. Whether that is an endorsement or not an endorsement makes no never mind to me. I’ll expose the truth to as many as available.
Chris
Refusing to endorse a candidate does not equal refusing to preach against evil, bad behavior or vocal assertions that are against scripture.
I understand… and agree that endorsements are not necessary. Preaching should make the positions even more evident to the listeners, as God’s Word cuts deep and awakens the heart to religious charades that are posited in the culture by politicians.
Chris
Yes, well stated
“Preaching should make the positions even more evident to the listeners, as God’s Word cuts deep and awakens the heart to religious charades that are posited in the culture by politicians.”
Yep.
Excellent comment, Chris Johnson.
Dave,
I would just like to say that this is a great article and your last point makes me want to preach!
Over the years, I have to admit, I have expected too much from the world of politics. America can never be transformed by political means in the way that it needs to be transformed. The best way to impact society is found in spreading the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Don’t get me wrong, I will be at the poll bright and early tomorrow, because I do think that it matters, but not nearly as much as God’s kingdom does.
John
I agree the gospel is the best way. In fact I would go so far as to say that the gospel is the only way.
I think there is something to remember about politics, we simply cannot stand behind the pulpit and say a particular politician will do this or that, or say a particular politician believes this or that. We are talking about imperfect people, not God. What if the politician does the opposite of what they say, in a case like this we then are made liars. We can never go wrong by sticking to God’s word. I’m talking about party platforms also, you never know what a particular party will do next. Do not even endorse a particular party, stick with the word.
If I were to ask what each one of you wanted out of a President and the congress. We would have a government imposing religion on everyone. Ask yourselves what would be wrong with government pushing religion on everyone. First of all it goes against the constitution, second of all it would be law and not grace, thirdly, Jesus will have died for nothing. I think it’s just silly to expect something from the government that goes against the constitution. There is a separation between church and state, and I will support that separation until my dying breath.
“I think it’s just silly to expect something from the government that goes against the constitution.”
Well then, Jess,
If you really believe that, stop voting for Democrats!!
cb scott,
You know the Republicans are why we have abortion in this country. Remember 1973, Roe vs Wade, six appointed Supreme Court Justices and three appointed Democrat Justices, we shouldn’t have abortion, right.
cb scott,
Now that right there is funny.
I have never endorsed a candidate in the pulpit. I have “un-dorsed” a few!
Great article, Pastors should not endorse particular candidates, however congregations should be taught the Biblical perspectives on government, economics, and the relationship between theology and political philosophy. It is rather obvious that the church in America is not aware of how all of this fits together, or does and chooses not to be involved. This wilful ignorance ( generally speaking) might be our undoing.
OK, fair enough. What’s the biblical perspective on economics and government?
“In fact, when we were with you, this is what we commanded you: “If anyone isn’t willing to work, he should not eat.” would be a decent place to start.
If we have to tell people who to vote for, then we haven’t done a good enough job communicating biblical values.
absolutely!
It’s deeper than that Bill. I have black friends, including black pastors, who agree with me on every issue. It does not affect how they vote in regards to party. We’ve talked and talked and talked, yet how they vote does not change. The same can be said for many whites, who march lockstep with the Republicans, in spite of the fact much of the moral decline we’ve seen occurred on their watch when they had control. Politics by nature is as divisive as anything we have in our nation. It’s also as corrupt as anything we have. Some hold Christian values yet will continue to vote for candidates who don’t. Some vote for candidates who espouse those values, yet when in office do little or nothing to further them. Ultimately, we need to continue to speak on the issues, but IMO, as the one who quoted Will Rogers above said, if we mix God and politics, it becomes politics. I cannot tell you how clear this became to us in 2012 being politically conservative(as are everyone of our white members) in an almost all black community. When the conversation turned to politics, particularly the president, blacks tuned out and walked out. Is it a bit of shallowness in us as Christians, probably, but it’s a reality. Our situation is quite different than most churches, but we can’t allow political preference to subvert God. In other churches I’ve served, pretty much everyone agreed politically. Not the case here.
Jeff P.
I agree with you.
Bill Mac,
That’s it, when the Christian goes into the voting both they should not tell Christ to stand outside. I have not meet a Christian yet who would knowingly vote for any candidate who was pro abortion, pro homosexuality, pro socialist. I have however meet Christians who were not sufficiently equipped with a Biblical worldview and voted inconsistently.
Nonsense. Plenty of Christians vote “pro homosexuality” if you mean certain rights and benefits and plenty of Christians vote pro abortion depending on what exceptions you allow or disallow.
And there are plenty of Christians who don’t see quite like most of us here but are still Christians.
…we have a long history of drawing tight circles to suit a particular public policy position. All the more reason to stick with the gospel and not attempt some clever, self-serving religio/political potion.
William Thornton,
You are exactly right, brother.
Wilbur,
Then, you’ve never met the Yellow Dog Democrats, who live in the South. Because, they’re going to vote Democrat, no matter what…even if a yellow dog ran for the office, they’d vote for it. And, you can talk to them all day long…til you’re blue in the face, but they’re still going to vote Democrat. Now, these birds are getting fewer and fewer, down here in the South, but they’re still around. And, when we talk to them about the issues, they’ll tell you that the Republicans are just as bad. You see, they just believe that the Dems are for the little man. And, you cannot get them to see any different. So, they’ll vote for the pro abortion, pro homosexual candidate, every time, if he’s a Dem. And, they’re Christians.
David
volfan
Sadly you are correct I learned from my Grandpa to vote
Democrat party ticket. It took awhile for me to change that. Now to be fair I am 71 years old so that gives you a time frame. Democrats in those days were a little different than they are now. We called them Harry Truman Democrats.
Had some older gentlemen in my last church, conservative as the day is long. Yet they voted Democrat. Why? Roosevelt got them a job in the 30’s and they never forgot it.
Jeff
Was that my grandpa by any chance? 🙂
DL, one of them is 91 now, and still a good friend. He worked with the TVA and later in textile mills most of his life after the war. He’s an amazing man in many ways. I buried another one of them a couple of weeks ago
I’ve often been accused of being a single issue voter, and I suppose it’s true, in the sense that no candidate gets consideration for my vote if the office they are running for touches on the issues of abortion and the traditional family and they are not pro-life and pro- traditional family.
After that test there are a myriad of other preferences that I have – but those two are not preferences those two are foundational to my Christian/Biblical worldview and I cannot knowingly vote contrary to those.
I will say, that one cannot vote a biblical worldview and knowingly vote for a candidate Who supports expansion and funding of abortions in anyway. The same is true for the traditional definition of marriage – you cannot vote a biblical worldview and vote for a candidate who is seeking to expand the notion of homosexual marriage.
Notice I did not say you cannot be a Christian and cast ballots that way – what I said was you cannot be one who votes a biblical worldview and vote that way.
I don’t endorse candidates for the pulpit – because the pulpit is reserved for the proclamation of the Word of God and the exaltation of The Godhead. Where the preaching of the word of God touches political issues of the day, and perhaps even the actions of political candidates/office holders, then its fair game.
In other venues I do support candidates for offices – just like any other Christian would. If one were to argue that a pastor should not do that – as a member of society –then I would think it would follow that no Christian should.
David’ I hate to disagree with you just a few days removed from UT finally winning an SEc game, but there isn’t a “biblical worldview”. There are numerous iterations of the same. The phrase has been used so casually, mindlessly, and foolishly as to have been rendered virtually meaningless.
Sorry, I mistakenly replied to Tarheel instead of David Worley, Volfan. My reply was intended for Tarheel’s comment which invoked the devalued “biblical worldview” phrase.
I figured that – and I responded. 😉
William,
Since you brought it up….here’s a commercial from our Coach that sends chills up my spine every time I watch it….and, I’ve watched it 4 or 5 times already. I really, really, really like this coach. Here’s the commercial. Watch it, all ye in this blog, and be converted to the Big Orange! We invite all men to be Vol fans, and we mean all men, when we say all in Tennessee. So, turn towards Knoxville, and love the Vols. And, your life will be filled with Orange and Rocky Top.
http://youtu.be/mPZndCb98Ic
David
Goodness gracious, I just watched this commercial, again. Shivers are running up my spine. Go Vols! Woooooo hooooo!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evR2nCKvuVo
The big orange?
Your a “Cuse fan now?
(Syracuse) 😉
wow! Chris Roberts…that QB scramble at approx. 50 secs!
LSU had him dead to rights….then he’s gone!
wow!
Ok Vol and Chris. We don’t get the Vols this year (and I truly wish we would go back to playing them every year) and State beat us in Starkville. State is a very good team. But they better watch out for Bama in T Town. Anyway, if (and that’s a big if considering our remaining schedule) we win out and State wins out, we might get a re play in the playoffs. Either way, here’s one of our promo videos. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Au2BW9ITLso
That makes me curious William.
Are you implying that the disintegrating unity of an increasingly diverse group known as “Christians” are competent to invalidate any possible description that might be known as “A Biblical Worldview”?
I am, if I don’t get them mixed up, inferring that you might be implying that.
If so, would it not follow, for the same reasons, that “The Will of God” is equally “devalued” into meaninglessness?
Seriously, just curious.
I’m saying that when folks invoke a “biblical worldview” they characteristically load it with a few pet issues so that it comes out to their liking. BW is the 21st century version of voter guides, most anyone can make up one to fit their preferences.
I’m sure you have a BW that you are quite serious about (and I may well join you in it, were you to outline it) but the phrase carries little meaning in public discussions.
The “will of God” concerning what? Obamacare, tax rates, gay rights, foreign policy, gun laws, immigration policy, speed limits…?
William T
You are correct to an extent. What you say about BWV can be said about most any label. The negative aspect of this obviously, is that one can use a label with a straight face while knowingly mean something different. These things I concede.
However, I do think that there is enough meaning in the phrase BWV to adequately set one apart from the other with clear understanding. Does it articulate the many nuances..No. Does it serve the function of distinction…Yes.
That is probably true…that culture (and even our church culture) has so “casually, mindlessly, and foolishly” thrown around the words biblical worldview that its meaning has been somewhat hidden.
But Like David Wells, who has the “Courage to be Protestant” and seek to recapture that term – I have the courage to hold and encourage a biblical worldview and seek to recapture that term to its true meaning – viewing the world, even the political world, through the lenses of the Bible. Leaving room for disagreement and discourse where the Bible does not lay out specifics – but being unapologetically unequivocal where does.
I don’t necessarily disagree with your approach but any of us have a long, long way to go to load our BW with meaning. Frankly, when people invoke it they generally aren’t interested in an explanation or discussion but rather expect that the phrase ends the conversation.
William T
You are very articulate with a pen, hence getting into a tussle with you is always a challenge. But what the heck, here goes anyway. You make a rather broad assumption, my brother. These kinds of generalizations tend to make me nervous.
DL, anyone can claim to have, vote for, or maintain a BWV. Absent specifics, the phrase is meaningless. But it sells; hence, politicians, preachers, college promoters all use it.
William T
You miss the point. Without specifics no descriptive term has meaning. This even includes things like saying “I love you” or “I support you”. I am simply saying that within similar community and environment and within bounds of trust, one can speak of BWV and I can have a rather good understanding of what he is saying.
For example because Tarheel and I share community, environment, and trust, when he speaks of BWV I have a good understanding of what he is communicating.
Obviously when those factors are not shared then I would not. However that is not lacking specifics that would be intentional deception.
William,
Perhaps a generation will arise that decides to reject any pompous politician, preacher, college or seminary that uses “Christian Worldview” with the same marketing spin as the currently popular purpose statements and marketing paradigms.
Could be worse. Might be better.
I wonder if Christians in China, India and the Middle East have the same problem agreeing on “Christian Worldview”?
DL, it would be better to say that it has many meanings.
William T
I guess we are going to disagree on this. While it is true that terms have many meanings again I must insist that when defined in like culture and environment and an arena of trust the possible meanings decrease dramatically.
Tarheel
Those are my two water shed issues also. There are not enough issues with which I would agree with a candidate to get my vote if he does not support traditional family values.
Here is what I have said, and will say:
Apart from seeing a candidate truly become a believer, we have to assume that they will be less moral, less righteous, less “good” than their campaign promises. Their campaign promises include signing off on their party’s platform–even if the individual claims disagreements, they signed off to support whatever the party tells them.
So remember that when you vote: if you are single-issue pro-life, realize that the person who says “safe, legal, and rare” for abortion will most likely be even more permissive than that; the one who says “never” will also be more permissive. But the latter starts from a better place.
Doug,
“But the latter starts from a better place”. The way I see it, if the politician signs off on the party platform, the latter may not be the better place.
On that single-issue, it is–if the only thing you are looking at is “pro-life” vs. abortion, then you have two choices:
We are in favor of killing babies without concern vs. we would rather it not happen though we aren’t really in favor of doing much to help folks out when they have babies and bad things happen.
One party wants to force you to run a long race all on your own. The other is in favor of killing you before you start.
“So remember that when you vote: if you are single-issue pro-life, realize that the person who says “safe, legal, and rare” for abortion will most likely be even more permissive than that; the one who says “never” will also be more permissive. But the latter starts from a better place.”
Absolutely agreed.
The latter starts from a MUCH better place.
I have often told people that my wish is to see elective abortion become completely illegal…but I do not have real hope that this will ever happen in our fallen world. So, I say to the “safe, legal and rare” crowd that I reluctantly could live with “life (not lifestyle, but actual life) of the mother” and “rape and incest” exceptions – this would eliminate all but about 3-4% of elective abortions in the US. Strangely, the “safe, legal and rare” folk are really so keen on the “rare” part of that mantra. 😉
*…really NOT so keen…
Doug
Fantastic observation and great advice
“Everything rises and falls on leadership!”
Every President is responsible for everything good and everything bad that happens in the whole world. That’s the whole truth and we have the proverb to prove it.
I can’t help but wonder how that applies to the King of Kings. Wonder how He takes our expectations.
This conversation is far too civil for one involving politics. Where’s the fireworks? 🙂
In any beginning speech class, they will tell you not to alienate your audience at the beginning. Not to immediately turn people off from listening to what you have to say.
If I endorse a candidate, I have already turned off a huge section of the crowd who endorses the other guy. I might have valid biblical points for them to hear and listen to, but often they are already tuned out.
The town I live in is intensely political, more so than another small towns I have been in. I try to, as I said above, speak about political issues without being political. That is to say, speak about gender issues, sanctity of life, marriage, justice, etc, all in a way that people from both sides of the aisle will listen.
“This conversation is far too civil for one involving politics. Where’s the fireworks? 🙂 ”
I know right….and I have not even said that anyone is being “jerky”, yet…LOL
Tarheel,
There is no fireworks because I almost have Dave Miller and CB Scott converted.
Jess,
You just might find a glitch in your conversion program.
Jess,
Converting CB Scott and Dave Miller?
I suspect the chances of a great liberal conversion of either of those two is about is good as your chances are with me…
And there is a chance of snowballs lasting for centuries in hell that are greater than the possibility of that. 😉
Tarheel,
I’m a positive thinker. Lol
Dave certainly needs to be converted away from his near-worship of the NY Evilkees. CB, on the other hand, rightly puts the Crimson Tide just below the Trinity.
John
Tarheel
Hang in there my brother, the day is still young. I have confidence in you 🙂
Tarheel
I should have added…how does it go…..Bwhahahaha. Is that right?
You got it, sir.
If Iowa goes Democrat, you all can blame Dave Miller.
Jess,
So, who gets the credit for her kicking her opponents hinder most parts? 😉
It was a bad night for you and other liberals…governors, senators, House of Reps…all over the US.
Just sayin’
Tarheel,
You may consider me a Liberal. I don’t consider myself a Liberal. Matter of fact, I don’t have a liberal bone in my body.
Jess,
You caught that, huh?
😉 Bawahahahahahaha!
Gentlemen
there is REAL hope that Montana will replace a Democrat with a Republican in the Senate today.
Looks like that hope has become reality.
Tarheel
Yes and he is a good man. He has good values and I personally think he is honest and thus far demonstrated integrity.
Montanans did their part yesterday. Good people, Republicans
There is no such thing as separation of politics from religion. If Christians bite on that lie then they will get rolled by the secular-humanists, atheists, and agnostics that believe their worldview (religion) is what spurs them to vote.
As far as pastors endorsing specific candidates from the pulpit, I think that is dangerous. As for churches supplying their congregations with voting information, records of the incumbents and how they voted on issues, and the opposition’s stances on key issues, I see absolutely no problem whatsoever.
In fact, I would say that if Christians leave their faith outside the voting booth before casting their vote, they are asking for the judgment of God.
“As for churches supplying their congregations with voting information, records of the incumbents and how they voted on issues, and the opposition’s stances on key issues, I see absolutely no problem whatsoever.”
You do realize these things are highly skewed to present certain candidates in the right light, in effect counting as the endorsement of particular candidates.
Chris Roberts,
You are 100% correct.
Jess,
There are very few elections where the candidate’s votes are not filed. That goes for the incumbent (Rep/Senator/Governor) or the opponent’s records for the offices they held prior. It would be extraordinarily rare for any opponent of an incumbent to not have held any office, thereby giving you access to their actual voting records. These are all on-line and available. Unless you are touting a huge conspiracy theory on voting records being tainted.
Nate,
I don’t know what you are talking about, please explain. This is one of my dense days.
Nate,
I get it now, you were referring to my agreeing with Chris Roberts. If voting records were in the wrong hands and someone allowed to introduce their opinion and bias into these records, they could certainly be skewed. Politics has a way of putting a spin on anything. The voting records by themselves are usually right on. Sorry for not understanding your previous comment.
Chris
That is correct. However I have seen charts where the candidates were asked the same questions and their answers were reported verbatim.
Nate
Your first line. I have to think on that awhile, but you just might have a point.
Everything else…well said in a nutshell!!
William,
Impossible to argue with your logic,,, I would just be trying to be clever and self serving.
A fair question to have asked had Democrats won a majority of the various races for the Senate would have been:
Will the POTUS be abusive due to his newly established strengthened position of power?
Now that the Republicans have won a strong majority of the various races for the Senate a fair question is:
Will the POTUS be vindictive due to his newly established weakened position of power?
The reality is that the next two years may continue to be turbulent times in the USA and the world as a whole due to the absence of credible leadership in the most powerful position among earthly governments.
Therefore, it remains imperative that Christians draw near unto God and resist the temptation to place faith in elected officials. For men come and go and are always plagued with the curse of sin.
“But the Lord who abides forever; He has established His throne for judgment, and He will judge the world in righteousness; He will execute judgment for the people with equity. The Lord also will be a stronghold for the oppressed, a stronghold in times of trouble.” . . . and those who know His name will put their trust in Him. For the Lord has not forsaken those who seek Him.
More and more and more and more, the people of God must declare that everything, absolutely everything, and everything completely, depends on Christ and Christ alone.
I think this is well said, CB.
Your main point is outstanding!
I note that you give our President only two options, though: abusive use of power or vindictive use of power. The spectrum might be wider than that. But you might be correct.
Regardless, all the nations of the world are but dust on the scales to our Creator.
Jerry Corbaley,
Amen!!!!
Dwight McKissic,
I am interested, to what of Jerry Corbaley’s comment do you respond with this hearty “Amen”?
Dr. C. B.,
All of his comment. I appreciated what he had to say to you in totality. I thought his comment was fair and balanced. His comment was an affirmation of what you said. And so was my Amen!!!
But to get to the heart of your question, it was when he said that President Obama has more than the two options that u mentioned, is what sparked my comment. Your limiting the President to two options, and Jerry saying that you should look at it more expansively is what I was really saying Amen to. But, the main point is, I agreed with the totality of Jerry’s remark. My ability to respond the next three days will be quite limited due to my travel schedule. Hopefully, this lengthy response satisfied your curiosity, and you won’t have much, or any at all response.
Dwight,
This far in the history of the POTUS he has done nothing that would give any indication that he would do anything other than be abusive or vindictive in the remaining two years of his presidency.
On the other hand, were he to actually recognize himself as a sinner before a just and righteous God, repent and believe the biblical gospel of Christ, there may be a tremendous turn around in his leadership of the USA.
Also notice, I formed my thoughts as questions, not absolute declarations.
It seems that both you and Jerry Corbaley failed to recognize that fact. Frankly, I did not give the POTUS two options. I asked two questions.
“This far in the history of the POTUS he has done nothing that would give any indication that he would do anything other than be abusive or vindictive in the remaining two years of his presidency.”
That’s truth right there. His press Wednesday conference validated that conclusion as well.
“were he to actually recognize himself as a sinner before a just and righteous God, repent and believe the biblical gospel of Christ, there may be a tremendous turn around in his leadership of the USA.”
Now to THAT I say a hearty, AMEN!!!
Actually, God created all people of all nations to glorify Him.
Yes, compared to Sovereign God, all nations of the earth are but dust. However, God calls for all people of all nations to be more than mere dust. God calls for all people of all nations to glorify Him.
Jerry, CB may have been liberal to give two, and not one. There is one clear message that this POTUS has made abundantly clear,… He is not kind to the Christian faith, nor does he administer basic and foundational capitalistic virtues that are based upon the principles found in that faith. It would stand to reason that if one is not aligned with the Christian faith, beyond the teleprompter, they may be inclined to be vindictive or abusive to those that understand faith based principles.
We do need to pray that our leaders come to know Christ in a way that moves them from being abusive and vindictive,…that would be a good start.
cb scott,
Pure wisdom, brother.
Jess,
Thank you for your kind words.
cb
Wow brother, I wish I would have said that. A five star comment to be sure.
D.L. Payton,
Thank you also, for your kind words.
My response will be brief; and gentle, actually. I know how I wrote these words, you can heat them in your own mind if you wish, though. Perhaps some will reflect on what I say.
First, the litmus disclaimer, I have not voted for a democratic candidate for any office, ever, in my whole life. I have, and I do, speak out on moral issues from a Biblical perspective; for example, SBC Voices. I tend to try and speak where it might do some benefit; I speak about the democrats to the democrats I know, and I speak about the republicans to the republicans that I know. I am an independent, because I don’t expect republicanism to survive the return of our Lord.
The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ is great, and anyone who is born of the Spirit will seek his kingdom and find some concrete meaning to his words, “My kingdom is not of this world”.
The idea that “This far in the history of the POTUS he has done nothing that would give any indication that he would do anything other than be abusive or vindictive in the remaining two years of his presidency,” gives an opposite weight to the statement, “Frankly, I did not give the POTUS two options. I asked two questions”. Okay, this logic escapes me for now, though I’m sure one can attempt to justify it. While all men are capable of abuse and vindictiveness, I think the exaggeration here reaches to the point where it is implied that POTUS is incapable of making any decision that does not flow from the intentional motive of intentional abuse and intentional vindictiveness. Even Genghis Khan and Joseph Stalin had some friends and made some decisions that were not always abusive and vindictive.
It might be worthwhile for Christians who have come out of the world to consider that political correctness has two faces, both left and right, and that neither of them conforms to the Lord’s will concerning “Respect and Honor”, (Romans 13:1-7, 1 Peter 2:17) or to love of enemies (Matthew 5:43-48, 1 Corinthians 13:4-7).
Now our second litmus disclaimer: Of course people should vote, we are citizens with a form of government where non-participation is akin to irresponsible stewardship. And of course Christians can be active in politics, but not as an excuse to return evil for evil. There is no form of government that will solve the problems of sin; until Jesus Christ returns and removes the sinners.
Let me share with you a word with a real definition. It is a moral value shared by the political left and the political right, and I don’t consider it to be a positive trait, I fight it when I find it in my own life, and I think readers would do well to consider whether they should reject it also.
bigot (plural bigots)
1. (derogatory) One who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices.
Don’t call me a bigot. That’s extremely rude!
2. One who is strongly partial to one’s own group (e.g. religion, race, gender, political party, etc.) and is intolerant of those who differ.
Ignorance of this reality is not helpful. For an ignorant bigot is worse than an intentional one. And I think the only One capable of judging the hearts of men is our Lord. So I will urge my brothers and sisters to love other, even their enemies, by deed AND word, and speak to issues and not people, as if we can’t make time to do it right.
Let me end by reminding everyone that I am no better than you are, that I have done things as bad as any you imagine I may project upon others, and that I offer my words from a repentant heart, out of gratitude and reverence to our Lord Jesus Christ.
Would Joseph the son of Jacob be a godly enough POTUS? He bought all the land and all the people and they became Pharoah’s. Was Egypt at that time a godly land?
Should Pharaoh have been given honor and respect?
Ooohhh! I’m sinking, sinking, sinking into the depths of “Latest Comments” obscurity…
Jerry Corbaley,
In the last two days I think the POTUS has settled the matter as to the subject of my questions himself.
In his own words he has made it clear that he will not be abusive “or” vindictive. In his own words he has made it very clear that he shall be “both” abusive and vindictive.
CB Scott,
I am not aware of his quotes. It is within the realm of possibility that you could be right about the motive of his heart. That is why I said, “But you might be right”, above.
But, brother, I am skeptical that he actually said what you imply. Rather, from your heart comes the assertion that he shall be both abusive and vindictive. Perhaps I read what you just wrote incorrectly?
While I am not interested in defending every word of our POTUS, or you, or me, a link to your reference might be helpful, or a quote in sufficient context could be helpful.
“It is within the realm of possibility that you could be right…”
When arguing with CB, I simply NEVER accept that premise.
Sorry, Cornelius Beauregard. I couldn’t resist.
Geaux Tigers.
C.B. I wish I felt differently but I’ve become somewhat cynical in regard to politicians–especially the career kind like Obama.
For him not to be both abusive and vindictive means he would have to have had a change of heart–I see no indication of that.
Though, there’s always “hope,” — especially now that we have some “change.”
People of God manage to show respect and honor.
Joseph managed to respect his master, his jailer, and pharaoh.
Esther managed to respect her harem owner.
David managed to respect the one who stole his wife and tried to murder him, sparing his life with great respect; twice.
Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego managed to respect the King who was throwing them into a furnace.
Daniel managed to respect the King when he was thrown into the Lion’s den.
The Apostle Peter told people to respect Nero.
The Archangel Michael managed to show the devil respect. With holy perfection.
These were not insignificant people. They were all free of the expectations of the cultures in which they lived. They respected people in authority, they put their hope in God; they put no hope in political factions of godless governments. Most of the people of the world didn’t care.